Director: Terence Malick
Writers: Terence Malick
Stars: Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman

Synopsis: A writer indulging in all that Los Angeles and Las Vegas has to offer undertakes a search for love and self via a series of adventures with six different women.

[/info]

Given our current cultural landscape and films like Zootopia, which take on controversial topics in robust ways, it could make one kind of feel bad for liking this film. Knight of Cups, from esteemed director Terrene Malick, is just another story about a rich, white male who doesn’t quite have it all together. Why should we care? It’s a valid question to raise and in terms of the film’s cultural importance, well, it doesn’t have a strong argument. However, Knight of Cups gets to notions that all of us can relate with, even if you’re not rich, white or male. In fact, in the end, none of that really matters.

At the heart of this film, it’s depicting a parable about a prince who went to Egypt to find himself, but rather gets lost in his longing for superficial pleasures. It’s pretty clear that in this metaphor, Christian Bale’s character of Rick is the prince and Hollywood is Egypt. Rick is a screenwriter who is lost in Hollywood debauchery with no end in sight. Parties, girls, looking for something deeper. You know, the usual suspects. Rick’s marriage has fallen apart, his family is in deep mourning and internally Rick is finding it hard to cope. He scours the streets of Los Angeles looking for answers but most of what he’s searching for has been elusive.

While Malick has tackled these themes and ideas before, Knight of Cups is structured in a simplistic moral framework that is rather easy to follow. Bale has very little dialogue and most of his screen time is spent reflecting on the chaos happening around him. Sometimes literal chaos. There’s one scene where we see an earthquake and it drops Rick to his knees, symbolically depicting Rick’s emotional state. It’s perhaps a bit on the nose but also one of the more intriguing shots of the film. Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubeski are quite intentional, changing formats from GoPro to 35mm film and both are used extremely well at capturing, not only the pathos of the film, but somehow making the streets of LA feel more than just concrete and steel. This being Malick, and three-time Oscar winner Lubeski, it’s no surprise that the film’s imagery is exquisite and beautiful while impeccably rendering the film’s thematic undercurrent.

The problem with Knight of Cups, which isn’t so much that the film’s themes are redundant for Malick, but rather it’s lacking depth. Most of the female characters, who are crucial to the film narratively, are reduced to nothing more than naked bodies or voices of wisdom. Malick uses several of them as narrators which ultimately just becomes white noise since their characters are meaningless to the audience. They serve their place in Rick’s story but in the end, they aren’t integral to the film’s thematic core.

So, again, why should we care?

Well, going back to our parable and although the film doesn’t acknowledge it directly, there are parallels to the “Parable of the Lost Son” from Luke 15 in the Bible. Now, that may mean nothing to you but what’s fascinating about that story is how it features a second half to the equation that Malick seems to be interested in here. Yes, Bale is representing the trite, lost son but simultaneously there’s a father that hasn’t given up on his son. And not just Rick’s physical biological father, who is wonderfully played by Brian Dennehy, but a spiritual father is calling out to Rick. Through voice narration done by Malick himself, there’s a God-like figure that seems to be seeking Rick and wanting to heal him. And while Knight of Cups is regurgitating themes Malick has explored before, it’s execution has conviction and heart that comes across poignant and genuine.

Now, that notion through the lens of just another rich, white guy perhaps loses it’s potency for some audiences. It’s understandable and as mentioned, this is nothing profoundly new for Malick but it’s themes are still relatable on a spiritual level for anyone who’s felt lost, despite whatever box society may try to fit you into. This isn’t a “religious” film by any means but Malick does have something to say about how nature connects with us when we need guidance. In this case, Malick’s simplicity actually works in his benefit (at least for the most part) when it comes to those ideas and Lubeski’s beautiful imagery helps resonate the heart of those ideas.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Byron Howard, Rich Moore
Writers: Byron Howard, Jared Bush, Rich Moore, Josie Trinidad, Jim Reardon, Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee
Stars: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, Jenny Slate, J.K. Simmons

Synopsis: In a city of anthropomorphic animals, a rookie bunny cop and a cynical con artist fox must work together to uncover a conspiracy.

[/info]

It was the mid to late 1990s and into the early 2000s when Pixar began leading the charge in modern animation, leaving Walt Disney Animation Studios essentially in the dust. The quality of Walt Disney’s films (also Pixar’s parent company) seemed to remain dormant for much of the 2000s, but then came Bolt, then came The Princess and the Frog, then Tangled, Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, and Big Hero 6; all quality films evident of a comeback. And aside from the wonderful Toy Story 3 and Inside Out, it was now Pixar’s turn to find themselves in that same dust storm; oh how the tables have turned. Rather than continuing to churn out quality animation, Walt Disney chose to do something daring; they fully sealed the deal that they are now the ones leading the charge in modern animation, as Zootopia may be the studio’s best film since the early 1990s.

Zootopia takes place in a world of anthropomorphic animals, focusing on our heroine Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin), a rabbit who dreams of becoming the first rabbit police officer of the city of Zootopia, a place built for all mammals, specifically predator and prey, to live together equally. The world-building of Zootopia could almost be a feature length movie on its own; Judy’s train ride into this extravagant city is one of the best forms of visual storytelling the world has seen so far this decade. Not only is the animation itself breathtaking and beautiful, but it’s the level of detail and research done to believably tell the viewers how these mammals can physically coexist in this world; “Rodent Island” is a personal favorite.

Judy then finds herself tangled in a “missing mammals” case, and is forced to team up with a sly fox Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman, who arguably gives one of the best voice performances of late), a clever con artist who has embraced the predatorial stereotype of who he is (more on that later). Judy is not meant to take on this case, she was assigned parking duty on her first day by Chief Bogo (a great Idris Elba), but circumstances bring her and Wilde together, creating a helluva dynamic duo. Their chemistry is immediate, and it’s here the script’s wit and charm is able to shine; the jokes are clever, constant, sarcastic, and even satirically on point (that sloth scene at the DMV is both hilarious and true). Top it off with a neo noir aesthetic with references to L.A. Confidential, Chinatown, and The Godfather, and Zootopia becomes an incredibly entertaining romp, well balanced equally for children and adults; adults can catch the Breaking Bad reference while children can laugh at the “upcoming” Disney films like Frozen 2.

All this makes for a very entertaining and straightforward animated flick, and for a while that’s really all it is, it just happens to be very good at doing it. It is not until the film’s turning point when Zootopia becomes something more entirely. On one end, it is about striving for your dreams, even ones that everyone says you can’t do; a fine moral for children. But on the other end, and boy is there another end, Zootopia is a surprising and profound commentary on our current racial crisis, dealing specifically in racial stereotypes and prejudice. The notions of predators vs. prey is a clear allegory for the black vs. white conflict, especially when these predators begin resorting back to their predatorial states provoked by the prey.  But this can even be tied to minorities in general, considering what continues to occur overseas, in the job market, among other places. Lump the police angle on top of this, especially when compared to what’s on the news nearly every day, and Zootopia becomes essentially timeless. It’s a clear statement for why racism exists, and blames it on the world’s lack of open-mindedness, unfortunately replaced by rational ignorance.

If the case hasn’t already been made, Zootopia is not just a great animated film, but an important one.  It may not be perfect (Michael Giacchino’s score lacks the punch of his previous work, and a shoehorned appearance and song by Shakira feels almost like it was just a Disney necessity), but it shouldn’t need to be perfect, as it fully makes aware of the imperfections of today. Zootopia is evidence of the resurgence of Walt Disney Animation Studios, bringing back joyful memories of seeing The Lion King and Aladdin for the first time. Fortunately, unlike the issues it presents, Zootopia’s greatness is here to stay.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

[divider]

Director: Dan Trachtenberg
Writers: Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, Damien Chazelle
Stars: John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, John Gallagher Jr.

Synopsis: After getting in a car accident, a woman is held in a shelter with two men, who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack.

[/info]

It’s pretty safe to say that 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a direct sequel to the J.J. Abrams produced Cloverfield that graced screens in 2008. However, Abrams is on record of saying that 10 Cloverfield Lane is a “blood relative” to Cloverfield, and that is a great way to describe it, if you ask me. Regardless of relation, 10 Cloverfield Lane is doing it’s own thing and isn’t interested in the same things as Cloverfield. The style here is quite different in terms of approach but it is similarly effective at creating suspense and tension. Dan Trachtenberg’s direction is tightly gripped and focused, creating a thrilling atmosphere that lingers in every scene. It’s calculated but in a great way of understanding the material and playing with audience expectation. Trachtenberg cleverly builds false suspense at times which keeps the film unrelenting in it’s uncertainty. The humor is well-timed and the score amps ups the tension masterfully as well as give the thrill ride a sense of fun. And overall Trachtenberg gives 10 Cloverfield Lane a visceral quality that takes advantage of it’s (pretty dang good) script.

The film begins by showing us that Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has recently had an argument with her fiancé and has left town to escape the heartbreak. While driving way she’s involved in a car accident that hinders her unconscious. When she wakes up, she finds herself chained to a bed in an unknown location. Soon after, she meets Howard (John Goodman) and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who explain to her that there’s been a widespread chemical attack on the United States and that it’s not safe to go outside. The three begin a riveting dynamic that is full of tension, paranoia, untrust and perhaps even some bonding by the end as they are forced to figure out what’s really happening around them.

The script is predicated on a captivating catch 22. You’re trapped in a room with a potential psychopath but if you enter into the outside world, there’s a high possibility you will die. The dilemma presented is a fascinating concept but it’s what the writing team does with said premise that makes the film so enthralling. Each character is given time to flesh out their motivations and the dialogue among them is alluring. The mystery behind what each character is really up to unfolds itself with impeccable timing and is always engaging. Some of it is even played for laughs as a way of keeping the audience guessing, which is both hysterical and horrifying at the same time.

The script’s success, along with the film’s gripping tension, is due to the phenomenal performances on display. John Goodman gives a legit performance that would foster awards conversation if this film came out in November. Goodman’s nuances are utterly captivating and he brings necessary understanding to his character. Howard is clearly disturbed on some level and paranoid but simultaneously he’s also smart, prepared and reasonably cautious. And the way Goodman depicts both sides of Howard is magnetic in every scene. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is also really great in a committed performance. She highlights the films themes in a manner that makes them feel earned and heartfelt. John Gallagher Jr. is a bit overshadowed but he does serve the role well taking advantage of the few moments he gets to shine. The threesome together is quite something to behold.

Thematically there’s some interesting notions surrounding paranoia and our capabilities to get lost in it, however the film is more interesting in these ideas of feeling trapped. There’s a physical element of that at the beginning of the film with the Michelle character but more so, how do you cope with feeling trapped psychologically and emotionally? These are the main questions Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken and Damien Chazelle are raising. Specifically, the film digs even further with these notions of being trapped in regret, which is depicted beautifully in conversations we see between Michelle and Emmett that bring pathos to the film. The final shot of 10 Cloverfield Lane is wrestling with this idea and for one character (he or she) must make a decision as to what it means for them.

Speaking of the ending, this is the movie’s Achilles heel. It’s aesthetically quite different than anything that came before it and almost feels like it’s from a completely different film. The conclusion feels a bit tact on with the film feeling like it has to take advantage of potential outside circumstances that it presented earlier. The blend of these two aesthetics don’t quite come together but it’s not a complete failure either. The ending still features solid direction, great acting and it’s thematically consistent.

Overall, the craftsmanship on display pretty stimulating and Trachtenberg has put his name into the hat of directors you need to watch out for in the near future. 10 Cloverfield Lane isn’t a perfect film but it’s one of the more cinematic and blistering experiences we’ll perhaps see in 2016.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

[divider]

Director: László Nemes
Writers: László Nemes, Clara Royer
Stars: Géza Röhrig, Levente Molnár, Urs Rechn

Synopsis: In the horror of 1944 Auschwitz, a prisoner forced to burn the corpses of his own people finds moral survival upon trying to salvage from the flames the body of a boy he takes for his son.

[/info]

Son of Saul is a haunting and hypnotic view of a true story familiar to many. Due to this familiarity, this is a film that could’ve easily been bogged down in unnecessary exposition and world-building. It instead chooses to constrict its focus and narrative, and thus create a strictly singular view of an event many would like to forget ever occurred. It is a bold and brilliant move by the film’s director and leading actor, so much so that one would naturally assume this director had been making films for years. But get this, Son of Saul is from a first time director. Needless to say, this will go down as a special and important film of the Holocaust genre, and easily one of the most personal.

Son of Saul, written and directed by Laszlo Nemes, was the 2016 Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film (from Hungary). Its story is focused on that of one main individual named Saul, played by Geza Rohrig, a Jewish-Hungarian prisoner at Auschwitz. Saul and his fellow prisoners are members of the Sonderkommando, or “secret keepers”, those who are offered a “prolonged” life by leading other Jewish prisoners to their gas chambered deaths. These secret keepers are then forced to raid the clothes and belongings of the dead for their valuables, before finally cleaning up their bodily remains in arduous fashion.

And arduous is the right word to describe this film, yet Nemes never spends his time hammering his viewers with visually graphic details. The way Son of Saul is shot is a character in and of itself; Nemes chooses to film the entirety on this medium close-up shot of Saul himself, even further constricted by its narrower aspect ratio. Limiting the depth of field and exterior focus helps blind the viewer of the visual horror Saul is forced to carry out, and yet it surprisingly makes the film that much more frightening; not only does audience imagination play a huge factor, but the audience can then spend their focus on Saul himself, and his heartbreaking yet subtle reactions to the painful world around him.

None of this would work without Geza Rohrig’s mesmerizing performance. The greatest compliment you can give any actor is their ability to act with their eyes, a skill Rohrig delivers in spades here. His physical reactions are subtle, but they simultaneously state his physical and internal torment beautifully. The drama ensues when Saul encounters a young boy prisoner, killed by the gas chamber, whom Saul may or may not have a direct connection with. This puts Saul on a personal mission, driven by his own desires, yet never one-sided in its morals; Saul’s actions are indeed selfish and have dire consequences to those around him, but Rohrig’s performance makes known of a familial past that Saul may have lost, or perhaps wanted but never had. Familial lost in a time of great despair thus becomes one of the film’s central themes

But its themes don’t end there. Son of Saul continues to deal with the notions of survival’s guilt, religious faith, and how your actions and desires change when faced with an eventual yet certain death, but at any uncertain moment. And the moral ambiguity surrounding the film comes full circle in the film’s final sequence, one that finds a striking balance between harsh realism and uplifting catharsis; regardless, it is incredibly well earned. For how limited its visual scope is, Son of Saul is one of the richest and most personal of all Holocaust films, backed by a stunning central performance and realized by a filmmaker who has an incredibly bright future ahead of him.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Director: Babak Najafi
Writers: Creighton Rothenberger (screenplay), Katrin Benedikt (screenplay)
Stars: Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman

Synopsis: In London for the Prime Minister’s funeral, Mike Banning discovers a plot to assassinate all the attending world leaders.

[/info]

London Has Fallen is of course the sequel to 2013’s Olympus Has Fallen, which in this film lover’s humble opinion, was an abomination to mankind. Okay, that’s hyperbole but it was my worst film of 2013. The premise was absurd on a level that is insulting to the audience’s intelligence, it offends the US military and to top it all off, it’s anti-Asian comments are overtly racist. Not to mention there are films from 1995 with better visual effects. Did they even try?

Yes, I understand this is a review for London Has Fallen but perspective matters here because while London is also problematic, it’s easier to forgive and have fun with when looking at it through the context of Olympus. Of course, film is always subjective and what one may find less insulting, others may find it more egregious. However, when you look at all the problems London has, Olympus suffered from the exact same problems but had a worst overall premise and Antoine Fuqua’s dry directing made it even harder to engage with, even as dumb fun.

London picks up a few years after the events of Olympus, where the British Prime Minister had just passed away. Attending his funeral would be several of the world’s finest leaders, including President Asher (Aaron Eckhart). This is too great of opportunity for Kamran Barkawi, a terrorist out for vengeance against President Asher, as he executes a raid on London in attempt to make a statement and capture Asher. However, Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) is back on President detail and will protect him at all cost, which leads to mayhem and Banning doing exactly what you expect him to, given what he showed in Olympus.

Again, let’s talk about perspective. With films like this, there’s always an element of suspending your disbelief and engaging in the world of the film. However, it’s also the job of the filmmaker to make that happen, it’s not always automatic. Olympus failed miserably in that for some audiences, me included. This is where London succeeds. In comparison (which may or may not be fair but I find it a healthy exercise in this case), the raid on London is much easier to believe than the raid on the White House in Olympus, depicting a large scale assault on the city that took several years of planning. As a result, the film lets the viewer surpass step one, engage with the world and it’s characters and makes it possible for dumb fun to be had, as Gerard Butler goes around kicking butt and, well…just that.

Babak Najafi’s direction is mostly that of an amaetur filmmaker but Najafi does take some risks. He embeds trickier camera techniques and attempts to make the world more entertaining, even if it doesn’t always work. Where Fuqua’s direction in Olympus was dry and passionless, at least Najafi tries. I can appreciate that.

That said, the worst of this film is the script. The attempts at adding heart to Butler’s character, comes off as genuine in spots and does work better than the tact on love story in Olympus but overall wasn’t necessary to the story depicted here. More importantly, the film’s patriotic and preachy messages are crass, repulsive and even a bit contrived as we turn toward the film’s climax. I’m not sure what screenwriters Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt were going for but so much of the dialogue in the third act is confoundingly offensive. The script is already superficial as it is, that to force in racist and myopic dialogue is pretty head-scratching.

Maybe I’m being too hard on these films? They are supposed to just be dumb fun right? Perhaps, but if the film is insulting to the viewers intelligence, racist toward other ethnic groups and too ignorant to care, why should I give it a pass? If it wasn’t for the more believable premise, the moments of fatherhood and Gerard Butler’s performance, this would also be a huge fail. For some audiences that won’t be enough and it’ll come off cold but for others, there is some fun to be had here.

Overall Grade: B-

[divider]